report_customer_balance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. Calling it a report implies a read-only operation, and it states what the report shows plus supported input categories, but it does not mention permissions, output format, or whether any side effects exist; for a reporting tool this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with the report purpose front-loaded and no obvious filler. The second sentence is generic but still relevant to invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description identifies the report and the broad input categories. However, it omits return structure, column/grouping behavior, and any distinction from the detail-report sibling, leaving gaps an agent may need when selecting and interpreting the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description only says the report supports date range, accounting method, and filters, adding little beyond the schema. The nested params schema already documents all filter fields, date fields, the date_macro option, accounting_method enum, and summarize_column_by, so the description neither compensates for nor meaningfully extends that detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific report, 'Customer Balance Summary,' and states its output focus: outstanding balances by customer. This is clear enough to distinguish it from unrelated CRUD siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely named report_customer_balance_detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is that the report supports date range, accounting method, and filters, which describes capability rather than when to use it. It does not say when to choose this summary report over report_customer_balance_detail, report_aged_receivables, or other customer-balance alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.